70-300mm VR is the only one I would see as a possibility. It could be the AF Select (change to spot like HF said) and use the center spot. I would try the latter first before another lens. AF deals more with the camera and not the lens unless you do go for a f/4 or f/2.8. When my 70-300vr starts to hunt alot I changed everything to single servo, center focus point and spot metering. If I have the 3d 51-pt on it does go bonkers in low light.

HF: Have you actually shot all those?

Consider the new 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX from nikkor.

For the range you mentioned the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens would probably be suitable.

For low light, maybe the newer lenses will focus better .. or get a newer camera which has a better autofocus system? the D3200, D5200 seems nice.

Also try using the spot focus with the camera set at the center focus point, which is usually the most accurate focus sensor.

PS its nice too see my old pictures from early on in the thread! .. See the dragonfly in flight photo? with challenging subjects .. Manual is the way to go.. Maybe suggest that she try manual focus ..

PPS what about the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc. seems like a good option.

What you are asking for really doesn't exist, short of using a higher end camera body (D600/D800/D4). The only consumer zooms that don't weigh a ton are the 55-300 VR, and 70-300mm VR, both of which are variable aperture and wont solve the current problems your wife is dealing with.

Anything cheaper? :)

Sounds like the new 70-200 f4 would be perfect.

Warming over an old thread with a new question:

We just got back from Antarctica. My wife shoots a D90, and the only thing she wanted to shoot was the 55-300mm kit lens. Ok, fine. She uses autofocus and always will. She was annoyed that as soon as the light wasn't perfect, or as soon as the background grew complex, the 55-300mm started to hunt.

I was about as shocked as the dude in "Casablanca" was to find out the gambling was going on at Rick's. I offered her any/all of my primes, but she only wants to use a zoom lens. The 200-400mm I brought along was too heavy for her to handhold for any length of time. So she needs a new piece of glass and I need a suggestion as to what to get her (yes I'll be selling the 55-300 to help finance it).

REQUIREMENTS
--Something that zooms she can handhold for a 1-2 hour stretch
--Something that won't hunt in full-AF mode around f/5.6 to f/8 in light that isn't horrible but isn't perfect.

DON'T CARE ABOUT:
--Great IQ. She's going to be posting 2MB JPEG files on the Internet.
--VR

Yes I'd like nice IQ, yes I'd like VR, but I don't want to pay for it. There are a wide array of choices (with the new 70-200 f/4 at the very edge of the price range) but all I really want is "zoom, doesn't hunt". Maybe if IQ is nbd, a third-party solution is the way to go?

Opinions?

Best lens nickname ever The "Bigma" haha just thought this should be added to this discussion^^ The 50-500mm F4-F6.3 might deserve some attention here.

I know the 70-300VR has outsold many modest price teles. Both the initial 80-400VR Nikkor and the 2006 revamp get lots of evaluations as slow. From what I hear a faster 80-400VR would sell really well. Maybe msmoto's and TaoTeJared's researched numbers show why Nikon has been very slow to re-release this lens in a faster version. Too bad from my standpoint as for DX Nikon DSLRs like a possible D7200 this would look perfect. This thread is a very good one and the data presented does tell us a lot. Thanks to NR for this kind of valued information. Maybe this long awaited lens to buy for ME to buy shows I'd better not hold my breath much longer.

That's the chart - bit tricky since you have to add some of the runs together. It is interesting to see which lenses sell the most. You can also see and look at the past lens updates to see where the next couple will be. I couldn't find it off hand, but there is another chart that shows the per year. In the past, Nikon has upgraded lenses once they drop in sales drastically and after 5 years.

All of the expensive & Pro glass is lower - it's more expensive. About 188,000 over 12 years or almost 16,000 per year. In half that time the 70-300vr rack up over 886,000 or almost 148,000 per year - 9x more sold. That is what I was looking at. Hell the 14-24 has sold almost 180,000 in 5 years, and that costs more.

70-300/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR - 886,852
28-80/3.3-5.6 G - 1,711,736
55-200/4-5.6 G IF-ED VR - 2,783,212
18-55 is over 5 million!

@ TTJ

Some numbers to consider….

The first VR lens was the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR edition 1 produced from Feb 2000-2005 and 116,402 were produced An update in 2006 and since 72,511 have been produced.

The latest version of the 200-400mm f/4 VRII has seen 4,508 produced since 2011.

And, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII since July 09 has seen 238,047 produced.

The AF 35mm f/2 D has seen since 2006 a total of 107,146.

Here is the link, last updated 30 Nov 2012

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

msmoto said:
Nikon may have patented a 100mm - 500mm f/4-5.6 lens, but this has never been in production, thus no price. Years ago a 180mm-600mm f/8 zoom was sold, a slider type where the lens length was changed. Cost is unknown. A current 100-500mm f/4-5.6 would no doubt be in the $3,000-5,000 range. There is a very large difference in an f/4.5 and an f/4 lens.

Thus, I would suspect to keep the ability for a teleconverter, the 400mm end at f/5.6 is where it will be. Cost... my guess is about $2,200

Does Admin have a list or know how to compile one of all the patents for an "update" to it?

I would just like to see the list and I think everyone would be informed to see how long this has been going on. I remember seeing the sales/production numbers of all of Nikon's lenses and the 80-400mm actually was quite low - really low actually. One of those, "I would love to see it - but never end up buying one" lens.

I would think they would be focusing on a 24mm f2.8, 35mm f/2, 20mm f/2, replacements as well if not before. The primes outsold the 80-400vr by massive numbers. Could see a 70-300vr replacement as well - that is almost as old as the 80-400.

Dodging said:
I agree on the longer Tamrons - I just don't like them and the images look soft tom me. The Sigma 120-400 OS is not bad, but the 150-500 is better... Even better is the 50-500.

My biggest gripe with the 80-400 is the slow focus speed, but I'm sure the replacement will be faster...

Two questions remain though: When? How much?

I'd still go for the Sigma 120-300 though - it's a fantastic lens

of course I get recommended the $4,700 lens :P

I would much prefer a 200-400 f/5.6 or even better a 400 f/5.6 prime, but if it is faster focusing, sharper and VR III a 80-400 would still be wellcome...

Nikon may have patented a 100mm - 500mm f/4-5.6 lens, but this has never been in production, thus no price. Years ago a 180mm-600mm f/8 zoom was sold, a slider type where the lens length was changed. Cost is unknown. A current 100-500mm f/4-5.6 would no doubt be in the $3,000-5,000 range. There is a very large difference in an f/4.5 and an f/4 lens.

Thus, I would suspect to keep the ability for a teleconverter, the 400mm end at f/5.6 is where it will be. Cost... my guess is about $2,200

msmoto said:
My suspicion is the new lens would not go beyond 400mm. For, if it goes to 500mm, then the f/stop drops to 6.3 and no teleconverters can be used. A 500mm f/5.6 lens would be in the $3,000-4, 000 price range and I do not think Nikon needs this as it has the 200mm-400mm f/4.

And, the new third iteration of the VR is now out, so the probability of Nikon coming out with the new 80-400 replacement seems high. Maybe 100-400mm. Or even a 150mm-400mm. The idea of this lens, IMO is that it is portable like the current 80-400. And, holding the f/stop at 5.6 would allow the TC-14EII to be used so one can have 560mm at f/8.

Hasn't Nikon patented 2 designs for the 100-500 4-5.6? I think that if it comes in around 2-2.5K US and it has very good performance at 500 people will pay for it. Although seeing the 70-200 f4 VR makes me think that even if this lens gets replaced it wont be cheap.

My suspicion is the new lens would not go beyond 400mm. For, if it goes to 500mm, then the f/stop drops to 6.3 and no teleconverters can be used. A 500mm f/5.6 lens would be in the $3,000-4, 000 price range and I do not think Nikon needs this as it has the 200mm-400mm f/4.

And, the new third iteration of the VR is now out, so the probability of Nikon coming out with the new 80-400 replacement seems high. Maybe 100-400mm. Or even a 150mm-400mm. The idea of this lens, IMO is that it is portable like the current 80-400. And, holding the f/stop at 5.6 would allow the TC-14EII to be used so one can have 560mm at f/8.

aquarian_light said:
Is there anything in this zoom range (i.e. max zoom circa 400) in anything NOT nikon thats worth getting? Tamron.... Sigma... anything else thats a good replacement for this mystical nikkor 80-400 update? Sigma is dodgy... seems to be lots of lemons from what I've read, and every Tamron I've had my hands on just... feels.... cheap.

Say maybe the Sigma 120-400... any word on that? orrrr the 150-500?

I have the Sigma 120-400OS. Sample variation is very wide though. Got mine 2nd hand. The 1st owner said that he went through 5 copies to get a good one. Nice lens if you do get a good one though. Very heavy( as heavy as a 70-200 VR). Some reviewers say that it is almost as sharp as the 100-400L. You can take a look at my Flikr for examples. I saw someone at F1 in Singapore this year with a D3s and a 120-300. Asked him why he didnt just get a 300/2.8 VR and he told me that he preferred the zoom since, 1) He wanted the zoom for those 'what if' shots 2) According to him the focus speed and sharpness on a good copy is very close to a 300/2.8 VR2( he went through 2 copies before settling on this one mind you). He also said that the 120-300 OS takes TC's relatively well 3) it weighs roughly the same as a 300.2.8 VR. If i were to take one lens to a safari it would be the 120-300 on a D400

aquarian_light said:
Is there anything in this zoom range (i.e. max zoom circa 400) in anything NOT nikon thats worth getting? Tamron.... Sigma... anything else thats a good replacement for this mystical nikkor 80-400 update? Sigma is dodgy... seems to be lots of lemons from what I've read, and every Tamron I've had my hands on just... feels.... cheap.

Say maybe the Sigma 120-400... any word on that? orrrr the 150-500?

I agree on the longer Tamrons - I just don't like them and the images look soft tom me. The Sigma 120-400 OS is not bad, but the 150-500 is better... Even better is the 50-500.

My biggest gripe with the 80-400 is the slow focus speed, but I'm sure the replacement will be faster...

Two questions remain though: When? How much?

I'd still go for the Sigma 120-300 though - it's a fantastic lens

looon said:
Finally some real hope for this lens. I got the impression from the article that he's expecting it in 2013. Hope it has a focus limiter, and if it comes in the form of 100-400 that would be even better.

I have seen articles like that for 5 years now. I think I have seen somewhere around 6 different patents from Nikon for a lens in this range (70-500) and none have ever came to fruition. I know I'm not holding my breath.

Dodging said:
Get a Sigma 120-300 f2.8... Now there's a good replacement lol

Is there anything in this zoom range (i.e. max zoom circa 400) in anything NOT nikon thats worth getting? Tamron.... Sigma... anything else thats a good replacement for this mystical nikkor 80-400 update? Sigma is dodgy... seems to be lots of lemons from what I've read, and every Tamron I've had my hands on just... feels.... cheap.

Say maybe the Sigma 120-400... any word on that? orrrr the 150-500?

This is one of the most awaited Nikkor Lens EVER!

Finally some real hope for this lens. I got the impression from the article that he's expecting it in 2013. Hope it has a focus limiter, and if it comes in the form of 100-400 that would be even better.

Get a Sigma 120-300 f2.8... Now there's a good replacement lol

Yes, there could be one next year, but this is something we've been hearing about for many years. I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for it, but hopefully it won't take too much longer. The 80-400 and 300/4 could both use an update.